April 25, 2009

If you've ever participated in a brainstorming session, then you know how quickly a group of folks can fill up a series of flipcharts or the white space on a white board. Like some of you, I've participated in meetings, and facilitated others, where we successfully whittled the brainstormed list down to a prioritized short list. Then, yet further to actionable tasks. That's the ideal result.

That said, I've also been in meetings (too many) where, at the end of it all, we concluded with nothing more than a lot of great ideas on a bunch of flip charts.

It's for this latter set of managers that I'm sharing this post.

What follows is an eight-step consensus-building process I've used successfully in meetings to get down to a short list of prioritized and actionable ideas after having begun with a long list of brainstormed ideas.

Now, I can't take credit for this. It's something I learned from others, and I doubt any of us know who started the whole thing. But, it's worth sharing. If for nothing else, then maybe I won't have to waste my time sitting in on too many more fruitless brainstorming meetings in the future.

So, if you learn something new here, then pay it forward. Pass this information along.

The tools

In anchoring a starting point, let me begin by assuming you've already generated a long list of brainstormed ideas. (For more about brainstorming techniques, check this reference for a Step by Step Guide to Brainstorming.) Then, with list in hand (or strewn across multiple walls), do the following:

1. Group and categorize the list of ideas. This is an iterative process where the facilitator goes down the list of ideas in succession. With each list item, the group is asked if there is anything in the list above it that might make for combining or grouping. Some things to keep in mind:

To facilitate a smoother round, each idea should be given a letter label. ("A," "B,", "C,"... and so on.)

Avoid using numbers. A numbered list often conveys a sense of implied rank ordering or prioritization.

When you combine ideas, cross out the letter (not the idea) of the list item being combined. Then, write it's letter next to the line item to which it is being combined.

2. Clean up the list. Usually, the brainstorming session itself, and Step 1 above, will have taken a bit of time. The flip chart will be messy, the group will have felt like they've really worked hard. (Which is why some unskilled facilitators allow the meeting to adjourn immediately after brainstorming or after the grouping step. Fight this temptation.)

Instead, put everybody on a break while you (or a co-facilitator) clean up the list by re-writing the resulting grouped line items onto a clean set of flip charts.

After you've created a clean list, give each line item a new set of alphabetic labels. (Again, "A," "B," "C,"... etc.)

Conduct a weighted talley using Post-it notes.

And herein lies the crux of this process.

3. Count the number of items in the list and divide by three (3). Let's assume, for argument's sake, we have a list of eight items, as the image on the left shows from a recent meeting.

Dividing by three (and then rounding), we end up with the number 3. (Well, 2.67..., but practically speaking, let's round up.)

By dividing the number of line items by the number three, you're defining the number of "votes" each member will get in the next step. (Note: Don't get hung up on why we're dividing by three. I've heard this referred to as the "N/3 Method." It's largely arbitrary, but generally it gives a result that reasonably assigns an "appropriate" number of votes for each participant.)

4. Distribute Post-It notes. The number of Post-Its you give out to each participant should equal the result in Step 3. So, in our example, (after rounding up) you would give three (3) Post-it notes to each participant.

5. "Pick what you like." Instruct each member to write one letter, from the list, on each Post-it note. Each letter represents a unique line item from the list. And, no duplication of letters is allowed. In other words, no fair stacking your votes. (Unless, for some reason, the group agrees that's okay... remember, the key thing here is to get the group to agree to the process. If they agree with that, they'll go along with the results.)

6. Rank order. Once each participant has had an opportunity to write a letter on each of the Post-it notes they've been given (three in this example), instruct them now to focus on the letters on the Post-it notes, and the idea that each letter represents.

Challenge them to rank order each Post-it note by placing a number next to each letter. (1 = Lowest in their set. And, in our example, 3 = the highest. Clearly, if the result of Step 3 above dictated 5 Post-its for each participant, then 5 would then be the highest rank.)

7. Reveal their weighted tallies. After each member has had an opportunity to complete their rank ordering exercise, instruct them to all come up to the white board at the same time (or, if it's a large meeting, then in smaller groups of 6 to 10). Have them place their respective Post-It notes next to its corresponding line item on the flip chart.

Note: This is a powerful step. It psychologically reinforces the "wisdom of the crowd." Each participant is less likely to challenge the resulting tally since, by their participation, they've agreed to the process that is currently at work. And, therefore, the results.

8. Sum and prioritize. Once all participants have had an opportunity to place their Post-it note on the flip chart, you or your co-facilitator should then tally the numbers (on the Post-it notes) associated with each line item. Write the sum boldly in the margin next to the idea to which it corresponds.

The result is a prioritized list: those ideas with the highest sums (e.g., D, E and A, in our example) are assigned the highest priority.

But wait, what if there's a tie?

Look at items B, C, and F in our example. Notice the Post-its associated with each of them add up to 3 on their respective lines. That's not a problem. You can either follow the same steps as above or modify the steps slightly using a simple tally with a simple show of hands while focusing on only those line items that require tie breakers.

Of course, this may be moot if the goal was to prioritize and, say, identify the top 3 items from which to develop action steps and assignment of responsibilities.

Summary

What I showed you here is a basic technique that many trained facilitators may be familiar with. (While not all may do it exactly this way, each has a similar process for achieving group consensus.)

But, if this is new for you, and it helps you at your next meeting, then remember to pay it forward. Pass the information along to a friend. By doing so, you and I may be saving each other from another dreadful "go nowhere" brainstorming meeting sometime in the future.

On Twitter, one of those norms is "Follow Friday." I'm not sure who started it, but at some point in time somebody posted a "tweet" and, within the space of the 140 characters allowable on a twitter post, identified one or more "tweeps" (twitter people) whom they thought was worth recommending to their network as someone worth following.

The post is usually appended with the text "#followfriday". It's called a hashtag keyword; it's a convention -- another one of those norms -- that evolved to make it easier to aggregate similarly-themed tweets (a twitter post) in search engine results pages. Here, for example, is the aggregated list for the #followfriday hashtag: search.twitter.com.

But that's all preamble. The main thing about this post is to fess up to the fact that I've been busting this cultural norm by not typically participating. It's not for wont of doing so. It's just that I'm, well, anal retentive.

You see, I personally feel like I'd be dis-ing one or more of my connections if I can't fit them into the 140 characters of my followfriday tweet. But more than that, if I'm going to recommend certain tweeps to others, I kinda feel compelled to say at least a few more words than what I can in 140 characters about why I'm making that recommendation.

I know, I know... I'm over-thinking this. You're absolutely right. Those people that make it on my followfriday list in any given week probably don't feel "dis'd" in the way that I'm making it out to be. But, good or bad, it's how my brain seems to be wired.

Be that as it may, there are, indeed, tweeps I think are worth following. And I want my network to know about them so some of you can follow them, too. So, to reconcile it for myself, I've decided to use this space, henceforth, every friday. While I still may not be able to fit everyone I love on each Friday's list, I'll at least be able to say a little more about each recommendation. And, there's always more space in subsequent fridays.

This week's follow friday list, in no particular order (there I go, over-thinking again...)

@tawnypress. Why? She was one of the first eLearning tweeps I met on Twitter when I was first getting started with the community. She keeps herself at the center of things and is keen to respond to others and perpetuates that culture of knowledge sharing that I so value about social networks. She's also someone I attribute with having helped found the monthly OCTweetups (live meetups in Orange County, CA) that has been such a great way to network and meet new folks.

@jonlan. Why? Another one of those folks who has taken the lead in extending virtual relationships to the real world where face-to-face meetings can happen. I attribute @jonlan with having started the #TwOrCo hashtag discussions on twitter. And, this is significant to me because it has brought folks together in Orange County, Ca to share information with each other first on Twitter, then in the live meetups that have occurred on pretty much a monthly basis.

@Peacekeeper357. Why? He knows some great motorcycle routes in/around Orange County and San Diego county. But, more than just knowing where the cool rides are, he's willing to take the dialog out of the virtual space and take a leadership role in extending that dialog as action in the real world.

@JeffHurt. Why? This guy came out of nowhere, popped up as a connection on Twitter as such things do in web 2.0, and immediately began tweeting and publicizing good stuff about... not himself, but about others. That, more than any other thing, always wins points with me. It's that whole "pay it forward" thing about social media that keeps me coming back.

So, if you're on Twitter, take a look at the four tweeps above. Worth following. And, tell 'em, @MelAclaro sent ya.

If you liked this, or any of the articles on this site, please subscribe!
Are you a fellow "Tweep"? Follow me on Twitter (@melaclaro).
Or, connect with me on LinkedIn: LinkedIn.com/in/melaclaro.
Got friends? Forward this post or save it to any of the bookmarking sites below.

Oh, there's also a bonus link in the Hubspot post that allows you to download a webinar recording for learning more abut using Twitter for marketing and PR.

If you liked this, or any of the articles on this site, please subscribe!
Are you a fellow "Tweep"? Follow me on Twitter (@melaclaro).
Or, connect with me on LinkedIn: LinkedIn.com/in/melaclaro.
Got friends? Forward this post or save it to any of the bookmarking sites below.

April 22, 2009

How long will it take to get 10,000 subscribers...?

The question above is a variation of a question that has come up multiple times in past meetings at a company I'm working with. It's a variation of the ROI discussion. And, it's rearing its head again as we prepare to roll out a subscription-based online training/social network in a couple of months.

And, oh, I should say I'm not writing about it here so I can give a definitive answer. Far from it. I'm hoping one/some of you might be able to help with models you've encountered.

But, as is my nature (at least, I like to think it is) I'm not coming to the table with you empty-handed.

One of many

While I'm familiar with "laws" attributable to Metcalfe, Reed, Sarnoff and Odlyzko-Briscoe-Tilly (which I like better than the others, btw... I'll save that for a future post), those are really more about interpreting "value," however that's to be perceived.

The "How long...?" question is one related to growth rates, I know. And, since I don't have anything empirical (yet?) I've gone in search of naturally-occurring growth phenomenon as one approach to answer the question. I mean, so obsessed am I that I've gone into the gutters--the garbage even--to find answers. You know, the stuff of bacteria...maggots, germs...like that... I'm talking about "ex", the symbol for an exponentially occurring growth rate.

Actually, in this case, since it's a time-related question I'm obsessed with (who isn't obsessed with time?), I guess I'd be coming to the table with e's opposite twin, the "natural logarithm" (symbol: LN(n)... which, they taught me in high school to say, "ell-en of n", where "n" is a reference to a period of time for something associated with a 100% compounded growth rate. That is, let's say I start with 500 units of something. One "n" would then be the period of time it takes to grow another 500 units.

Now, please understand, I may be anal retantiveritentiv retentive, but I'm no "quant". Far from it. I barely got a C in high school Algebra. But, I'm much better now. I actually picked up the ability to read and research along the way. If you want to dig deeper, here's a pretty good explanation of Demystifying the Natural Logarithm (ln) by Kalid Azad.

The high level

So, one approach in forecasting the time required to grow to, say, 10,000 subscribers is to begin with two questions:

1. How many do you have now? (Or, a variation: How many did you have...[last quarter, last year, two years ago, etc.]?) Let's say the answer to this is a current subscriber base of 500 users.

2. How long did it take you to grow to your current subscriber base? (Or, a variation: How long did it take you to grow to the subscriber base you had... [last quarter, last year, two years ago, etc.]?) For grins and giggles, let's say it took 5 months to get those 500 subscribers.

Then you say, okay, whatever the answer is to #1 above, that's one "n" (1n). And, whatever the answer was to #2? That's, one period. (LN(n)).

Then, the approach would be to use the LN function on any scientific calculator to calculate the natural log (resulting periods) of the number of "n"s your goal represents. In this case, 10,000.

Got all that? Hmm... let's work an example.

Example

In my setup above, I said we currently have 500 users. (500 = 1n).

And, I said it took 5 months to get there. (5 months = 1 period.)

The question is, how long to get 10,000 users? (n = 10,000/500 = 20).

To get the number of periods that represents, enter "20" in any scientific calculator and then push the "LN" button. (Or, using the simple table below, find 20 under the "n" column, then read the corresponding LN (periods).

Result: 3.

Answer: That implies, it would take about three 5-month periods (15 months total) to grow to 10,000 users.

Okay, just remember, this is a model, right? As such, we have to remember that models basically say, "Within certain caveats, I'm reasonably correct. Outside of those caveats, I don't make sense."

A key caveat in this case: we're assuming that the underlying growth rate of the thing being measured follows an exponential growth scenario... essentially, it grows continuously at a rate of 100% compounded every period. That is, 1...2...4...8...16, like that.

Allright, your turn. If you've come across other models, please post 'em in the comments below. And, if there are any corrections for me from you math majors, I'm open to 'em. Be gentle. ;)

If you liked this, or any of the articles on this site, please subscribe!
Are you a fellow "Tweep"? Follow me on Twitter (@melaclaro).
Or, connect with me on LinkedIn: LinkedIn.com/in/melaclaro.
Got friends? Forward this post or save it to any of the bookmarking sites below.

I also talked about how I thought the exchange seems to derive from a philosophy amongst military line officers (i.e., those in line to command war-fighting operations) about stepping up and embracing a task that has been assigned to us.

Ask most line officers to finish the following statement, "When in command..." and you'd likely hear them finish with "... take charge."

When in command, take charge.

At first blush, that statement sounds redundant. (When you take charge, you are in command, uh-huh... When you're in command, you're in charge, duh...?)

But here's the thing... it's not always clear when "command" -- that is, having responsibilityandaccountability over some scope of tasks (that's an "and," by the way) -- has passed to you. We don't always have the luxury of someone above our food chain telling us to "take over." Sometimes (often?), that passing of the baton happens with an implicit wave of a hand, or just because you're "there."

As it turns out, even if a supervisor explicitly assigns any of us responsibility and accountability for a project, that's not enough to ensure success.

Recognizing that you're now accountable for a project is the first thing. Stepping up to accept and embrace (again with the "and") that responsibility and accountability is an entirely different thing.

Who's on first?

I was thinking about all this when one of my best friends, let's call her Annette, shared with me a sort of "post mortem" on a short duration project she had just finished. The project was to produce and deliver a grant proposal. The project team comprised 4 or 5 members, each with initial responsibility for a section of the overall proposal. And, though they ultimately got the proposal out the door, it was, as some might describe, a kind of "cluster f##k."

Right out of the gate, nobody was identified as having responsibility and accountability for the overall deliverable. The grant project was essentially a collateral activity, meaning it was an impromptu performance that each team member would "chip in" on. That, on top of their "regular" tasks they were each already burdened with.

Sound familiar? We've each been in that situation...I can't blame 'em. Why add to your workload?

The thing is, as the project evolved and the day came to assemble all the component sections of the proposal and get it out the door, it was clear (in hindsight, anyway) that Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first..." syndrome was in full swing.

Gawd, to hear her talk about it: pieces didn't fit, images were lost, version control was a big issue, fonts weren't matched up and whole sections that sounded good in a previous version no longer made sense, or worse, contradicted when combined with other sections. Meanwhile, the window for submitting the proposal was closing. It was kind of a mess.

Now the clincher, Annette was distraught because when "Who's on first" was playing out, it was clear that blame seem'd to be wafting her way.

How could this be? When all along, her read on the boss' language was that it was supposed to be a committee effort and that "they would all help put it together."

Oh, I should add that the waters were also somewhat further muddied by the fact that there was a reluctant project manager loosely assigned at the onset. But, filling that role was later left undefined when that PM left for a planned vacation. (Who's flying the airplane...? [See Part 1.])

Am I in command?

And therein lies the rub. It seems, in hindsight of course, that at some point, Annette was implicitly placed in "command" by her boss. But, you see, nobody -- including her and her boss -- wanted to formally acknowledge that assignment. Everybody was, after all, swamped with other responsibilities and nobody--including the boss--wanted to be seen as adding more to any team member's plate.

Hindsight suggests that there were, in fact, "soft clues" about a stealthy passing of the baton. Off-the-cuff statements to team members like, "...make sure to have Annette review your section...", or "...it's okay, we'll all help with the proposal...Annette, what's the deadline again...?"

Annette concedes having "seen it coming." But, she said nothing for fear of being associated as the defacto project manager. I sympthize. She didn't have time as it was to take on the management of the overall proposal effort. But, the thing is, when you find yourself in this situation, have no illusion: command is being passed to you. And, to say nothing simply leaves open the question as to whom is actually flying the airplane.

The only question that remains is, will you take charge?

Take Charge.

This is a leadership role.

Sometimes taking charge means taking a temporarily lead role to explicitly say, no. It's okay to say you're not ready to take the helm. Say it tactfully, of course, but make it explicit and ensure it's acknowledged. In that way, you and others have the opportunity to define who will be taking that lead role and the question "Who's on first" doesn't rear it's comical little head.

In Part 1, I wrote about the dialog between pilots as they pass control of the airplane. The first guy telegraphis his intent by saying, "You have the aircraft?" At this point, the second guy says, "I have the aircraft"... or not!

If he's not ready to take the controls, then he simply says, "stand by," or "hold on," "not yet," or something similar.

What he doesn't say is nothing. Doing so could potentially leave responsibility and accountability of flying the airplane in question.

Same thing in a business project. Be astute as to when the baton is passing to you and then explicitly acknowledge acceptance of that, or not.

If, on the other hand, you do accept, then continue with your charge. Immediately define the boundaries of tasks for which you will be responsible and accountable.

Secondly, embrace your new role and accept that your actions -- or inactions -- will be decisions in themselves. Set the agenda.

Finally, excercise your "command authority" to explicitly give command to others for smaller tasks. (See how this iterative thing works?) But, as with the bigger picture, make it explicit and ensure that passing of the small baton is similarly acknowledged, or not, by the team member to whom you're passing the baton.

So have no illusions. The next time you're placed in command--whether you're ready or not, take charge!

If you liked this, or any of the articles on this site, please subscribe!
Are you a fellow "Tweep"? Follow me on Twitter (@melaclaro).
Or, connect with me on LinkedIn: LinkedIn.com/in/melaclaro.
Got friends? Forward this post or save it to any of the bookmarking sites below.

April 19, 2009

"You have the aircraft?" "...I have the aircraft." "...You have the aircraft."

During flight training the Navy drills that "challenge/response" dialog into the thick head of every aspiring aviator. It's the procedure dialog between pilots in the same airplane when they pass control of the airplane to the each other. You can rest assured, it's a very deliberate cockpit exchange designed to ensure there's no question as to which of them is flying.

One guy "telegraphs" giving control without yet fully relinquishing it: "You have the aircraft?".

The next then accepts control and verbally affirms she/he has it and is now flying the airplane: "I have the aircraft."

Finally (and required), the former acknowledges having relinquished control: "You have the aircraft." A statement.

At no point is the airplane ever left without someone in absolute control.

'Matter of fact, if you had an opportunity to listen to the cockpit voice recording from the US Airways flight 1549 just prior to it ditching in the Hudson river last January, then you'll hear a similar exchange between First Officer Jeffrey Skiles and Captain (Scully) Sullenberger right as sh#t started hitting the proverbial fan.

Military line officers have a saying from which I imagine the aircraft procedure hand-off probably derived: "When placed in command, take charge."

I know, at first blush it sounds circular in its logic. But it's actually kinda profound when you let it sink in. And, I daresay, it's a philosophy that some of us in the business community would do well to practice every now and again as we work in various committees and project teams.

Tomorrow, In Part 2 of this two-part series, I'll share a specific example of a project gone awry. And, how just such an exchange could have helped stave off confusion about who was flying the airplane, so to speak.

You'll also see me fight my professional bias about laying blame on the doorstep of the executive who doled out the project to begin with. Because, no matter what my feelings are about the failings of the executive, the fact is, there are steps each team member could have taken to help define roles and responsibilities. As tired as it is, there is some truth to the cliche "we're all in this together."

As an old flight instructor used to say, "At the end of the day, the only difference between the guy in the cockpit and the last guy in the back of the plane, is that the guy in the back will get to live slightly longer when the plane hits a mountain because nobody was in control."

If you liked this, or any of the articles on this site, please subscribe!
Are you a fellow "Tweep"? Follow me on Twitter (@melaclaro).
Or, connect with me on LinkedIn: LinkedIn.com/in/melaclaro.
Got friends? Forward this post or save it to any of the bookmarking sites below.